methodology of counting green jobs? >> no, they did not. in fact, we went to, we went to some of the agencies to talk with them about what they thought maybe should be in a green job or considered a year job or not -- a green job or not, but it was entirely up to bls as to what to include or not include. >> ms. be roth, you evidently do not agree with the policy to invest in green jobs, but as you know, today's hearing is not about that policy. the hearing titled plainly says that the hearing is about dol's reporting of jobs figures which includes the definition and the number of green jobs calculated by the bureau of labor stats. on that topic -- >> would the gentleman yield? is. >> no, i'm not going to yield. let me finish my question. >> i just don't think you intended to dispage the lady's intent. that was the only reason --

>> no, let me, mr. chairman, can i get some more time? thank you. on that topic, this is what you say in your testimony. federal and state governments relabel existing jobs in an attempt to convince themselves and the public that such jobs exist. this entire exercise is an attempt to justify government initiative. you've heard dr. hall testify that the bls, which he led as a president bush appointee until recently, is an independent statistical agency. not influenced by politics and disinterested in policy information, policy formation. yet you accuse bls of engaging in an attempt to justify government initiative. ms. roth, did you mean to accuse dr. hall and the bls of engaging in the biased activity of promoting certain policies? ..

they pay a great deal of money, and they should get the best value should be job creation as a whole rather than dividing the jobs into green jobs. >> do you have any anecdotal avenues of where they're just

been a huge -- i know down in missouri we have a certain wind farm that was created by one of -- i mean, could you point to something like that and say, there's been no jobs created? do you have any and i don't evidence? >> well, i mean, there is solyndra, a company that -- >> i ask the taliban have an additional 15 seconds. without objection. >> solyndra that receive $535 million then went bankrupt. you had a hearing last month on brightsource energy that should involve and the highest levels of the white house in the approval of that loan guarantee. these are all green jobs. meanwhile, coal is not green but employs many, many americans. you have 200 years of inexpensive natural gas that we could be mining and giving

americans lower household utility bills. wind and solar might be green jobs but they result in high electricity bills for households. >> what about keystone pipeline, would you count that as green jobs? >> i would say this is something that should be approved so we can bring more oil down from canada. >> would that be characterized as agreeing job? >> the deal is coming to think the pipeline -- >> no, i'm asking you. >> i don't know. i believe -- i think you would not be agreeing jet into it would create more jobs for our refineries in the gulf of mexico. >> thank you. >> we now go to the gentleman from new hampshire. if you deal to me for just 10 seconds? >> i would be happy to. >> i would make note hilda solis the secretary was a sponsor of the green jobs bill which got put into the act. so the very idea that this is not political when, in fact, our

former colleague is responsible for it and now oversees making sure that the numbers come out. i think we have to be honest but it is all about politics. it has always been all about politics. into an issue question on pipeline, quite frankly the president was standing in front of green empty pipelines when he went to oklahoma. so they would probably count them as creatures because color of the pipeline. with that, the gentle phone from new hampshire's. >> with the gentleman from new hampshire yield to me for just 15 seconds? >> no, thank you. i do need to get to my questions. so i appreciate the chairman yielding back the time. i'm glad we're having this discussion your i wanted to address my comments and questions to first ms. furchtgott-roth. i personally believe there is some politicization in this particular issue, other people may disagree, and they are fair to their point and the perspective, and i respect that.

but you said something in your earlier testimony that is very important. why distinguish a job, agreeing job from a job? a job is a job it is a job. we're in an economic climate when we just saw our job growth the last month at 9000 the unemployment rate is now jumped one-tenth of a percent, and we have seen to us but that they could exceed, meet or exceed 8.5% by the end of the year. so people at home, at least in new hampshire, are not distinction between agreeing job or a job. what they're looking for is a career. so to that in the department of labor receives $500 million grant investing this funds to train workers in green skills. i probably would not have done that, had been in a position to make that decision. but that being said, the 500 million was appropriate of

-- we are now training for careers in this, and this related field. i guess my question to you would be, hasn't been an economic benefit -- has there been an economic benefit to the screen jobs training? as we see a demonstrable or a specific economic benefit to our economy? >> i would say that there has been practically no benefit to the green job training. the assistant -- there were only at that time, there only 1366 green jobs training and been in their job for six months afterwards, which was a very low return. because was over 100,000 per job, job training to if you want

to look at whether it's low unemployment, look at north dakota where the unemployment rate of 3%, the lowest in the country, there's a boom because of fossil fuel, hydrofracking, natural gas development. and there are no, i believe there are very few, i don't know of any green job training in north dakota. there's so much business you can't even get a motel or a hotel room there. the same with eagle for down in san antonio, texas,. >> and then other people who were trained, you have a percentage or number as to how many of those were people currently employed or the number of employs? >> i do not have that percentage off and but i could get that. >> would it surprise you if it was about half? >> that would not surprise me. >> and then finally, do you have, or you don't have it here, is this something, how can we find, i'm curious to know, of

the people who are trained how many of them actually are now working for an employer they got a d.o.e. loan? >> i don't have that information with me but i could look for to see if it is a failed and get back to. >> that would be wonderful. i would yield back the balance of my time. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> back to that point though, we're not debating green jobs. we're debating whether, in fact, what they're calling green jobs are green jobs here. if you drive a bus, you have a green job. if you sell used sporting goods, you have a green job. if you do, well, we already went through this, septic tank emptying, it's a green job. if you work at the salvation army, recycling close, it's a green job. no problem with any of these but when people say there's been 3.1 in green jobs produced, aren't they in fact talking about jobs

that have been around since before anyone in this room was born? and, in fact, those jobs rise and fall and have very little to do with anything unless you look at them in context over a long period of time with a same job analysis as an economy? >> that is correct. yes, you're the science museum, they are labeled green jobs so they are part of this green job creation, even though they were there before and. the same with the manufacture. they just didn't want the logo on the top. >> thank you. the gentlelady from california, ms. speier, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pretty perplexed by this entire discussion. maybe you on this panel can shed some light. what happens with this locket is you get information at 8:00 coming of the half an hour to digest it and at 8:30 you release it to your clients

into the public. that's how i understand. and all of the time, effort, money, extra efforts, extra expenses that goes into creating this lockup could be erased if we just had the department of labor issued the statistics at 8:30, you can digest and rather than get information at 8:30 the traders on wall street get it at 9:00. and what have we gained or lost as a result of that? i would suggest that this is all about what works for wall street. and i'd like to ask a question of the two representatives from bloomberg and reuters, mr. moss and mr. doherty, why would anyone subscribe to your newsletters if they weren't getting some benefit in terms of accessing information before the public? in response to one question

asked earlier, you said that your information is provided to your clients into the public public at the same time. but could you answer for me, why would anyone subscribe to your newsletters if they're not getting some kind of advantage? >> well, you know, how we send it out is one thing to everything goes out at 8:30. how people receive and use it is totally up to the. so as to how they would use it that's where the benefit would come in. you know, as i mentioned earlier the information does go to a variety of places. it was going to give on wall street, and not just wall street. the financial community worldwide. it would also go out to media clients who can use it on their websites. it also goes out to consumers via reuters.com. but i think the idea is how people use that information once they have it is what the difference is. i would say to your comment that if bls or department of labor puts it out at 8:30 it wouldn't

be to the general public. people would crowd the information, put it out as quick as they could. and without the benefit of having half an hour to digest it and make some judgments as to the importance of it. >> this is not just about wall street. i'll describe as throughout the country and throughout the world, they include people managing pension funds and teachers and firefighters. they include universities and other places of higher educations. they include philanthropic ventures. to include coffee makers. they include airlines spent it's all about making money though, is in the? >> our concern here is about ensuring that the public continues to receive something that they've been receiving for more than a decade. and that the public is fully informed and can make decisions accordingly.

remains fully informed. >> and i would say -- >> i would still like an answer to the question, why should i subscribe to your service if you're presenting it to the public and to your clients at the same time. >> if you have an interest in economic statistics and the full context, not just what the hon unemployment rate is, are what the payroll creation or destruction may be on any particular month, then you want to use a new service that provides you with as much context analysis and data as possible. the lock-up facilitates the transition of just that at 8:30 sharp. >> and i would say, to put, people subscribe to us for a bride every. people can get our coverage, congress and the white house on the internet as well, but other people do pay for that coverage. >> i will yield the rest of my time to mr. tierney if you want to ask an additional question. >> i knew the chairman we wanted to do that. i knew he wanted to give at

least half a minute to another member of the panel. i thank you for doing that. i make a point here, just the green jobs act, which ms. sulleys cosponsored with me, but it was not about green jobs. it was about training people with the skills energy passionate and education needed. so i didn't want to conflate the two. also there have been about 100 new renew energy and energy efficiency manufacturing plants that have opened up in this country since 2009. a number of them in my district that were telling us they need people able to do those jobs, and asking people for job training programs. so i make that distinction. i guess the one that interest in making sure clean energy and energy efficiencies industries thrive on the republican party because i know the emphasis of the department of defense is putting on green energy right now for a number of reasons, safety of our troops being one -- >> the gentleman will suspend. pursuant to the rule, as you

know, you may do a great many things. you may not to disparage the intent of members of either party, or any individuals here. spent did you feel disparaged, mr. chairman? >> to make a comment about the intent -- >> i will ask you to clarify. did you feel disparaged? >> yes, i did. >> how? >> the same reason the gentlelady just went to the floor for long period of time. if the gentleman would please refrain from violating the rule of the house. >> help me out here. come how you felt disparaged. >> the gentleman may continue for his 15 seconds. >> i will use it the rest of it to yield to you to tell me how you felt disparaged. >> to a ledge that we don't care about energy when, in fact, what we are seeing is people emptying sewage out of porta potty being counted as green jobs is, in fact, -- >> you to do as a personal

issue? [talking over each other] >> the gentleman's time is expired. we not go to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, for five minutes. >> i get follow-up those fireworks. dash that i can't follow-up those fireworks. [inaudible] >> i won't, mr. chairman, but i'm trying to respect my colleagues, even if they are wrong. but the question come in north carolina, dr. hall, you might be the right person for me to ask based on your experience with bls. you know, i'm deeply concerned about our agencies. we should be a light for the rest of the world on how government, governments keep track of data, whether it's labor statistics, whether it's our senses whether it's these very key, important pieces of data that we need to have very

clear understanding of, strikes and falls, the whole thing. so i'm very concerned about the strength of that data and the independence of it. and in making sure that release is done well and correctly, that the public has this information. my colleague asked about what you subscribe to whether bloomberg oil reuters, or whatever these different services are, and i subscribe to a whole variety of services in my office so i can have data assembled in a way that i can consume it better than maybe what's on the website. maybe put a 15 piece of data together all publicly available if you get analysis. i think free market work in that regard that we can actually have access to the. in north carolina, dr. hall, we had this issue, the governor for state level data, the governor

in north carolina who was a governor who has had a variety of issues, but in this circumstance she released the state unemployment data in a private group you choose speaking to a rotary club and released this data, and for her office put out officially to the wider variety. how, how is that done at the state level? is their great latitude that governors have in putting at the state level data? and what is the relationship? >> sheer. be a less works with state part is to click the employment data, and what it thinks it happens is because we're working with the state labor agency's and their helping us, they themselves get the data ahead of time. before bls. they get the data before the release, and because they are not federal employees, we can't

really control what they did with the data. we can ask them, for example, when you write the data and present it we can ask them try not to be political. sometimes they are and how they describe a day. something i wouldn't be comfortable with. and sometimes as in this case it appears like a state office may shared the data with the government is then shared it i happen to think that's a little bit of a problem. it's something that will fall in between the cracks because, because of this marriage between the federal and state governments. >> well, no, there are penalties. the confidential information protection fiscal act of 2002, a carries a fine of $200,000 a fine up to five years in prison. it's been hashed out a newspaper, my extend the governor didn't violate that law. has there been any action in terms of fines or penalties for release of this type of data?

>> not that i know. i'm not an expert in the law but that logic mentioned, i believe it governs federal employees. >> okay. so that goes to the state of latitude. so to that regard, you know, you served in previous administration, but do you think this administration has been too lax in its release of the monthly unemployment numbers? >> no, i don't think there's any issue with anything with release, other than the technologies has changed and it's made it harder to control the security of the release. >> thank you. thank you so much. and with that, mr. chairman, i would be happy to yield to 33 seconds i have left. >> i thank the gentleman. dr. hall, you are talking about security, security configured to ultimately if no wireless devices let in the room, and if wires do not accidentally or and it certainly bypass controls of a switch, and you don't let a reporter walk outside to set up

his camera, if you don't do those things, you still have the same level of security you've always had. which are people 10 cents a month or more, when convenient to the bureau of labor statistics, when you want them there, it is otherwise you just released directly, but when you want them there, you put them in a room, and, in fact, you don't give them access to send the information until you turned a switch. so i understand the technology. i spent a lot of time growing up in business in technology, but this doesn't sound like technology where it just oozes out. ultimately, the figures that we heard about were mechanical failures, weren't they? >> yes, they were. let me just say that via less sees value in the lock-up. we're not only -- they're not going to has to disseminate the data but they also want people to get right. they want a chance to explain it so is reported correctly. then when it is disseminated it

is descended currently. there aren't mistakes me. so there is real value in the lock-up. it's our concern needs to be done in a secure environment. now, the taking out of a puppet out of the room, i continue what's behind that. the effort to get traders out of the lock-up. automatic traders. so it was a decision in my opinion to get the traders out of there and have a lock-up without traders in there. that decision is kind of a real critical policy level decision for statistical agencies. i know to agencies that have traders in the lock-up. usda has traded in the lock-up who have their commodity trading that comes out of there. they for years have encouraged that if you're trying to facilitate traders working out of the locker. it's on purpose but they have much higher levels of security and to take care of things better. what this is, this is an effort to some degree to sort of tale on a land of trading to try to get in. >> thank you. mr. jordan? >> i would be happy to yield my time to the gym. >> then i will pick up where i

left off which works out real well here. i started on a line though and i want to continue with, it is in the bureau of labor statistics to interest have lockups, and that's why they have them. when it is not in the interest they simply put the information out. when i watch the nbc, bloomberg and other services, you know, all the various, i came out of business are used on multiple tvs in my office that distracted me from everything. but, in fact, what i would watch those i would hear people try to analyze your very statistics after the lock-up at indy, after the numbers were out. and they were arguing often, arguing back and forth about whether it really meant something, how it dealt with the previous provisions and you're somewhat famous for having a set of statistics that are revised, revised, and all that takes analysis that is far beyond the number, doesn't it?

and whether, ms. speier mentioned, there's a financial interest by people watching, or send a business man trying to figure out whether my forecast for future product is going to go a different way, and i may want to reconsider how much i stuck up on inventory for christmas, whatever the reason is, your thoughts, your statistics in a vacuum are dangerously useless if you don't have people who can make secondary evaluations that turns them into meaningful information with comic, dialogue, and prospective? >> absolute. it's a very important part. also another reason why beos is available directly from the public. you can call us, et cetera that's what i thought it's really important that nobody stands between beos and the public. that are disseminated but be able to describe it and help people understand. >> i'm going to close with just one question for mr. moss and mr. doherty.

is this rule as it was originally requested were to take effect in which your people are put into a room with only essentially a typewriter of modern making, a pc with word on it, and no reference data, no ability to bring anything more than happen to in their head, with the quality of your reporting, to your two major new services, go down? and wouldn't the differentiation of your services be narrowed? meany, would you tend to look more like if i had was your source material and half not to scratch up what you could on a typewriter? >> mr. chairman, that would be very detrimental to the quality, accuracy and context of what's now published at 8:30. for one reason we would not be able to have our software which helps us with historical context. it helps us formulate tables, greens of data on everything from dissipation rate to gender, to industries.

>> i would just add, not just the quantity would drop dramatically because we be doing a lot more than as opposed to the software automation. >> thank you. in closing, i know there's been a lot of controversy here on how we count what we can as green jobs. we'll have more all that on the second panel. but i'd like to thank the representatives of the press, both broadly and specifically. it is unusual to have the press before this committee. it is not a standard for us to be asking you questions. and we really appreciate being able to get the answers. but it is so important that what you do, and the fact that as a businessman, i wasn't necessary, i never subscribed to your services. i was looking at it in that detail but i wasn't worried about making a trade immediately. but the people, the things i read in the gym, in paper and so on, in the days and weeks

afterwards, i knew were infected by the quality of your initial reporting. not by the source data itself, but by the analysis of the source of data. so on a personal basis i want to thank you for pushing back to make sure that people in all aspects of life have the opportunity to have a free and differentiated press coming out of those lockups. and with that i think you. we will stand in recess for about five minutes when they we set for the second panel. [inaudible conversations]

>> they're often referred to as the conscience of the congress, and after having worked for almost two years, i can't think of a better name. it is really the heart of the people spent executive director and general counsel of the congressional black caucus, angela rye, on the role of today's caucus. >> it is dying to ensure the that members of congress were african-americans on issues that are plaguing the community at large, where they can find, now the. to come together to discuss legislation, legislative proposals to advance the causes of people that don't have a voice. >> more with angela rye sunday at eight eastern and pacific on c-span. >> the senate is about to gavel in. lawmakers will continue work on farm subsidies, food stamps and conservation programs policy. majority leader reid has indicated this it could spend several weeks on the five you

bill. the number of amendments expected, the current farm bill expires at the end of september. and now here on c-span2 live coverage of the u.s. senate. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. lord, you reign in robust majesty, and we face our labors with joy in knowing that you are always with us. we reply on your word

and celebrate your holiness, mercy and love. use our senators today to accomplish your will on earth, help them to remember that you desire to use them to speak and live for you, so that others may find in them the way to you. be their defender and the keeper of body and soul all the days of their lives. imbue their minds with your vision of what is best for our nation and world. we pray in your merciful name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., june 7, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 3240. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3240 a bill to

reauthorize agricultural programs through 2017 and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, we're now on the motion to proceed to the farm bill. the presiding officer: the senator is crekd. mr. reid: the time until 10:30 will be equally divided between the leaders or their designees. at 10:30 there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the farm bill. we hope we'll reach agreement on amendments to the bill today. following the cloture vote will be equally divided with republicans 34ru7bs controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. mr. president, we're lee are -- here we are again, one of these endless wasted weeks because the republicans are preventing us from going to legislation. we should have been legislating on this bill. this is a good -- this is a bipartisan bill. it's managed by two of our really good senators, a democrat, senator stabenow,

chairman of that committee, pat roberts from kansas, who has been in the past chairman of the committee, ranking member of the committee today. and they've come up with a really good bill. it saves the country $23 billion. it gets rid of a lot of wasted subsidies, it's a fine piece of legislation. now, we hear hue and cry constantly from our republican friends, let's do something about the debt. this bill does it. $23 billion. so i hope, we're going to have a cloture vote, on the ability for us to proceed to the bill. the ability for to us start legislating. now, i don't need to give a lecture to the presiding officer about how vexacious this is that we have to do this every time.

as the presiding officer wanted to do something to change this process at the beginning of this congress. i'll just bet you, mr. president, if we maintain our majority and i feel quite confident that we can do that and the president's re-elected, there is going to be some changes. we can no longer go through this every did bill bill. filibusters on bills that they agree with, it's just to waste time to prevent us from getting things done. so enough on that, mr. president. just such a terrible waste of our time. there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 3268 to amend title 49 united states code to provide rights for pilots and for other purposes. s. 3269 pmption a bill to provide that no united states assistance may be provided to

pakistan until dr. shakil afridi is freed. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings with respect to these two matters. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be placed on the calendar under rule 14. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent nathan engal a fellow in my office be granted floor privileges for the consideration of s. 3240, the farm bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: would the chair announce the business of the gay. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the time until 10:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled by between the two leaders or their designees. mr. reid: the time equally

divided. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, it's been a week now since the republican leadership in the senate and the house set several good-faith bipartisan proposals to the white house in an effort to resolve the student loan issue. and what has the white house done? absolutely nothing. the president has not yet responded. one can only surmise that he is delaying a solution so that he can fit in a few more campaign rallies with college students while pretending someone other than himself is actually delaying action. today the president is taking time out of his busy fund-raising schedule to hold an event at unlv where once again

he'll use students as props in yet another speech calling on congress to act. what the president won't tell these students that the house has already acted and that republicans in both chambers are ready to work on solutions as soon as the president can take the time. all the president has to do is to pick up his mail, choose one of the bipartisan proposals we laid out in a letter to him last week, promotes he's already shown -- proposals he's already shown that he supports. these are pay-fors that he has recommended, and then announce to the students that the problem has been solved. unfortunately, the president is more interested apparently in campaigning with the students at unlv than actually working with congress to find a solution. mr. president, i would suggest you open your mail. just open the mail. you'll find a letter there from the speaker and from the majority leader in the house and from senator kyl and myself laying out a way to pay for the

extension of the current tax rates for student loans for another year that you yourself have previously recommended. the only people dragging their feet on the issue are over at the white house itself. dragging their feet in yet another college visit. republicans here in congress have been crystal clear on this issue for weeks. we're ready to resolve the issue. it's time the president showed some leadership and worked with congress to provide the certainty young people and their parents need. i encourage the president, if he really wants to do something to help students, join us. join us in working to find a solution. this is really pretty easy. we all agree that we ought to extend the current student loan rates for a year. we've recommended to you, mr. president, the way to pay for it that you've already

adopted. this isn't hard. every day he's silent on solutions is another day closer to the rapidly approaching deadline here at the end of the month. now on another matter, i stood with the speaker of the house yesterday and his conference leadership and called for at least a one-year extension of current tax rates to provide certainty to families and job creators around the country that their taxes will not be going up on january 1. in the obama economy, we are facing a looming fiscal crisis that some have called the most predictable in history. millions are unemployed and millions more are underemployed and the country is facing the largest tax hike in history at the end of this year. this tax hike the president wants would hit hundreds of thousands of small businesses. to put that in perspective, this

tax hike would hit job creators that employ up to 25% of our workforce and we cannot allow that to happen. the economy is far too fragile right now. former president bill clinton said we're in an economic recession, and earlier this week before the obama campaign got to him, he was for temporarily extend current tax rates. yesterday the democratic senate budget committee chairman came out and said he was for temporarily extending current tax rates. and i would remind everyone it was the president himself in december of 2010 who said you don't raise taxes in a down economy. well, the economy is slower now than it was when he last agreed with us to extend current tax law back in december of 2010. in fact, the rate of growth in our economy is slower now than it was in december 2010 when the

president agreed with us that at that point we ought to do a two-year extension of the current tax rates. slower growth now than then. the same arguments apply now. this is the time to prevent this uncertainty and the largest tax increase in american history, right in the middle of a very, very fragile economy. it really doesn't make any sense, mr. president, to do otherwise. let's extend all of the current tax relief right now before the election. let's show the american people we are actually listening to them. let's send a message that in these challenging economic times taxes won't be going up for anyone at the end of this year. and let's not stop there. let's tackle fundamental progrowth tax reform. this is something upon which there is bipartisan agreement. i think we all need -- we all agree, it's been over 25 years

since we did comprehensive tax reform in this country. it's time to do that again, and we all agree on that. the president thinks that. republicans and democrats in the congress think that. the time to act is now. and if the president is serious about turning the economy around, preventing taxes from going up at the end of the year is one bipartisan step he could take right now. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first i would ask unanimous consent that the following detailees: marie james, marcus grant and kevin norton be granted floor privileges for the

duration of the consideration of s. 3240, the agriculture and food jobs act. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. today the senate will move to move tpaorpbd agriculture reform food and jobs act, also known as the farm bill. i hope my colleagues will vote, will join us to begin the debate officially on this important jobs bill because it is so important to 16 million people who get their jobs from agriculture. our economy has seen some tough times, as we all know. certainly we know that in michigan. but agriculture has been one of the really bright spots, and it's an underpinning of our economic recovery, and we want to keep it that way. if we fail to pass a new farm bill before the current one expires in september, it would cause widespread uncertainty and result in job losses in a very important part of our economy that is critical to keeping our recovery going.

agriculture is one of the only parts of the economy, if not the only part, that has a trade surplus. $42.5 billion in 2011, the highest annual surplus on record. and we know that for every $1 billion in exports, 8,400 people are working. so this is a jobs bill. mr. president, thanks to the farm bill, american families tonight will sit down around the kitchen table and enjoy the bounty of the world's safest, most abundant and most affordable food supply. and i think it's too easy for all of us to take that for granted. the men and women who work hard from sunrise to sunset every day to put that food on our tables deserve the economic certainty that this bill provides. the farm bill before us today makes major reforms.

we are cutting subsidies. we are ending direct payments. we cut the deficit by over $23 billion. as my friend and ranking member has said, this is voluntary. this is a real cut, as my budget chairman would say. and it is more than double what was recommended in the simpson-bowles commission. so this is serious. this is real. and we in agriculture, the first authorizing committee to recommend real deficit-reduction cuts, we are serious about making sure we are doing our part and that the families and ranchers and people involved in agriculture are doing their part as well. and they're willing to do that. but we have to have economic certainty because we are talking about creating jobs all across america. in rural areas and urban areas. this farm bill gives farmers new comport students so they can find -- export opportunities so they can create jobs. this farm bill helps family

farmers sell locally. we are tripling support for farm markets which are growing and new hubs which connect farms to schools. the farm bill provides training, mentoring and access to capital for new and beginning farmers to get their operations off the ground. this really is about the future of agriculture in our country. and as i've said so many times, this is not your father's farm bill. this is about the future. it's about we have three young farmers with senator roberts and i yesterday, and i can tell you they were so impressive that i feel very confidently about the future. they were saying loudly and clearly we need to get this done now so they can plan for themselves and their families. we are also for the first time offering support, new support and opportunities for our veterans who are coming home. mr. president, the majority of those who have served us in such a brave, honorable way in iraq

and afghanistan come from small towns all across america. and they are now coming home. and many of them want the opportunity to stay at home, to be able to go into farming, to be able to have their roots back in their communities. and we are setting up new support in this farm bill to support our veterans coming home. the farm bill supports america's growing biomanufacturing businesses, where businesses use agricultural products instead of petroleum to manufacture products for customers. and i am so excited about this because in my state of michigan we mak things and grow things, and biomanufacturing is about bringing that together. and as we move through this bill, i look forward to talking more about that. this bill moves beyond the corn-based ethanol into the next generation of biofuels that use agricultural waste products and nonfood crops for energy. this bill provides a new innovative way to support agricultural research. the men and women who every day

fight back against pests and diseases that threaten our food supply with a new public-private research foundation to stretch every dollar and get the most results. we extend rural development with a new priority for those proposing to maximize federal, state, and local and private investments so that small-town mayors like those who came before our committee across the country can actually understand and use the programs. we're simplifying it. we are going from 11 different definitions of rural down to one so it's simple and clear. and small-town mayors and local officials have better tools to be able to use to support their communities. and finally, mr. president, let me just say one more time, this bill is a jobs bill. 16 million people work in this country because of agriculture. we are creating jobs. we are cutting subsidies. we are reducing our deficit by over $23 billion.

i hope our colleagues will join with us this morning in a very strong vote to move forward on this bill. mr. president, can you give me the time remaining on both sides? the presiding officer: 18 minutes on the republican side. and 11 1/2 minutes on the democrat side. ms. stabenow: let me first turn to and yield time to, if i might yield -- i know that senator nelson also wishes to speak if i might yield seven minutes if that's appropriate with our distinguished budget leader and introducing him i'd want to say, mr. president, we would not have the thoughtful approach on the alternative in the commodity title that we have today, we know we're going to be working more to strengthen that as we move through the process but we would not have the strong risk-based approach we have without this senior senator from north dakota, our

budget chairman, and we wouldn't have the energy title that we have that creates jobs without his amendment and his hard bork work. frankly, this is something that i look to on every page of the farm bill because of his wonderful expertise and have to say one more time i'm going to personally and as a senator and chair of the committee greatly, greatly miss him when he leaves at the end of the year. i think i may be locking the door so he can't leave. i'll yield now to the senator from north dakota. mr. conrad: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. conrad: i thank the chair. i want to say she has provided brilliant leadership on this legislation. i'm in my 26th year here. i have never seen a chairman so personally and directly engaged to make legislation happen in an extraordinarily difficult and challenging environment.

when the history of this legislation is written, senator stabenow, the chairman of our committee, will be in the front rank of those who made this happen. and i just want to express my gratitude to her on behalf of farm and ranch families all across america for the extraordinary leadership she has provided. mr. president, farm policy has many critics, and they perpetuate a myth about the farm bill that it only benefits a handful of wealthy farm and ranch families. the truth is much different. the critics who often look down their noses at hard-working farm families that feed this country don't seem to understand the competition farmers face in the international arena and what an extraordinary stes this farm policy has been. the simple fact is our agricultural policy benefits every consumer in america. as a share of disposal income,

americans have the cheapest food in the history of the world. americans spend less than 10% of their disposable income on food, which is far less than any other country. and the senator, the chairman of the committee, senator stabenow, says very clearly this is not only good for consumers, this is a jobs bill. 16 million people in this country have jobs because of an agricultural policy that has been a stunning success. it is also a bill that helps us compete around the rest of the world. the 2008 farm bill has been a tremendous success by any measure. record farm income, record exports, record job creation. that's the history of the 2008 bill. it's contributed to the strong economic performance of american agriculture. as you may recall, it passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority, and it was paid for.

it was paid for. we actually reduced a little bit of the deficit with that legislation. that strong safety net created by the 2008 bill has enabled american farmers to continue to produce food for our nation even while facing tremendous market and weather risks. critics of farm policy also imply the farm bill is busting the budget. that is simply false. farm bill spending is only a tiny sliver of the overall federal budget. total outlays for the new farm bill are about 2% of total federal spending. and of the fa -- of the farm bill spending, only about 14%, 14%, goes to commodity and crop insurance programs. mr. president, the vast majority of the spending in this bill goes for nutrition. 79% of the spending in this bill goes for nutrition programs.

only 14% goes for what could traditionally be considered farm programs. mr. president, the farm provisions constitute less than one third of 1% of total federal spending. that is a bargain for american consumers and taxpayers. the truth is our producers face stiff international competition. in 2010, our major competitors, the europeans, outspent us almost 4.1 in -- 4-1 in providing support for their farmers and ranchers. and the e.u. is not the only culprit. brazil, argentina, china and others are gaining unfair market advantages through hidden subsidies such as currency manipulation, and inputt -- input subsidies that the wto is

incamable of mitigatings. not only do farmers and ranchers deal with unfair global competition they have to face natural disasters and unpredictable price fluctuations. the senate agriculture committee working together in a bipartisan way will contribute over $23 billion to deficit reduction. that is twice as much as the simpson-bowles fiscal commission recommended. twice the savings. the simpson-bowls commission recommended. in so doing this committee has provided more than its fair share of fixing this country's deficit and debt problems. if the rest of the committees of congress did what this committee has done on the leadership of senator stabenow, there would be no deficit and debt problem. that's a fact. now, mr. president, this is also a reform bill. this is the strongest reform

bill that has gone through a committee of congress in the history of farm legislation. and the chairman and ranking member can be incredibly proud of the leadership they've provided. this legislation streamlines conservation programs, reduces the number of programs, and makes them simpler to understand and administer. it reauthorizes important nutrition programs for five years, helping millions of americans. i also want to thank senator lugar, senator harkin, and the eight other sponsors on the ag committee for joining me in an amendment to continue funding for key rural energy programs. we're spending almost a billion dollars a day importing foreign energy. how much better off would we be as a nation if that money stayed here in the united states. instead of looking to the middle east, if we could look to the midwest for our energy supplies. and this legislation will help

move us in that direction. in addition, i want to thank senator baucus and senator hoeven for working with me to pass an amendment that will improve the bill for farmers in our part of the country. i'm also pleased the new farm bill will continue the livestock disaster programs that are so important to our ranchers when feed losses or livestock deaths occur due to disaster-related conditions. mr. president, how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: your time is expired, sir. mr. conrad: let me end on thatth point -- on that point. i'll put the full statement in the record. i thank the chairman and the chair.

mr. roberts: mr. president, how much time do we have on the republican side? the presiding officer: 18 minutes, sir. mr. roberts: 18? the presiding officer: 18. mr. roberts: thank you. mr. president, i yield myself six minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: mr. president, i rise today in support of the cloture vote on the motion to proceed on the farm bill. let me point out what the distinguished chairwoman and the distinguished senator that has just spoken has already pointed out, and it bears repeating. i know it is somewhat repetitive if people have been paying attention to the remarks that we have had here prior to this vote, but this is a reform bill at a time in which reforms are

demanded. it saves $23.6 billion in mandate -- mandatory spending, they are cuts, real deficit savings. it accomplishes this by reforming, reducing, and steamlining programs. we eliminate four commodity programs. these programs are very difficult to go through at the f.s.a. office, the farm service agency that we have, and so when farmers come in to try to wade through the four commodity programs they've always been terribly difficult and complex. we've streamlined the 23 conservation programs into 13 and eliminate duplication, we tighten a major loophole in nutrition programs, we cut 16 rural development authorizations, we cut over 60

authorizations in the research title and streamline programs. in whole, we cut and streamline over 100 programs. now, show me another committee that has done that on a voluntary basis. there isn't any. in the house or the senate. we've had speech after speech after speech after speech, heartfelt speeches. why can't you work together back there in washington and do what's right for the american people and quit spending money we don't have? we had a supercommittee that worked on this for a considerable amount of time. i don't question anybody's intent that had that tough job. at that time we offered to the supercommittee a package that could have been done at that particular time. but we did it. and we meaning the chairwoman, myself, and members of the committee, and staff as well,

who worked extremely hard. so there hasn't been anybody else that has come forward and said here is real deficit reduction. that's why we should support the motion to proceed. we have made the tough decisions because that's what you do in rural america whether it's michigan, kansas, or in the dakotas or in nebraska. because that is what you do when budgets are tight and you need to get things done. those in rural america are also why we need to get this bill done. the current law expires september 30. how many things around here are in purgatory? tax extenders, the tax bill, what we call the tax cliff that we're looking over here if we don't get things done. the specter of a lame-duck congress in three weeks trying to get things done like that. and you put folks in purgatory

where they can't make any decisions. well, it would be a disaster in rural america if we do not pass this law before we revert back to the permit 1949 law. that law and in no way reflects current production or domestic and international markets, and i would say even if we extend the current law, it does not really reflect what we need as of today. that law goes back to base acres 25 years ago. we're talking about planted acres as of today. so basically it would be government-controlled agriculture on steroids and it would -- it would mean virtually all programs under the current law would expire. we can't let that happen. farmers need certainty, ranchers need certainty, bankers need certainty, everybody up and down every main street in rural america needs certainty, agribusiness needs certainty. our farmers and ranchers and bankers need to know what the farm bill and the programs are going to look like. in farming you have to go to

your banker every year to get an operating loan for the coming year. now, we raised winter wheat in kansas. we're known for that. kansas is known as the wheat state. it will be planted in september. that means farmers will be going to their bankers as early as late july, next month, early august to get their operating notes for the coming year. without certainty in the farm bill, it is more difficult to make any economic projection and it is more difficult for farmers to obtain loans and for bankers and farm credit to provide that credit. that's why we need to get it done now in their behalf. rural america needs to know the rules of the game. just as importantly, american taxpayers are demanding government reforms and reduced deficit spending. this bill delivers on both fronts. it is true reform. let's get this bill done. i urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to proceed.

i reserve the balance of my time. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: before turning to the distinguished senator from nebraska, i just want one more time to say what a pleasure it has been and continues to be to work with the senior senator from kansas. this is -- has really been a partnership effort. it has been a strong bipartisan effort. i look forward to that continuing to be the case as we move forward through the bill to get it done. i would like to yield five minutes to the senator from nebraska and thank him, thank senator nelson for his strong advocacy for rural development. for making true reforms. he's been a strong advocate for crop insurance and for conservation, equip, things that are important. this is also, mr. president, someone that we are going to dearly miss on the committee and in the senate at the end of the

year. i think i may put the senator from nebraska and the senator from north dakota in a room together, lock the door and not let them leave because they are both so invaluable. the senator from nebraska. mr. nelson: mr. president. thank you, madam chair. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized for five minutes. mr. nelson: thank you. madam chair, i thank you so much for your strong efforts in bringing together this very important reform bill. we're moving in the right direction now with farm policy, moving away from protectionism, moving away from outmoded programs to something that certainly is in today's world important. that is, a safety net, a safety net that involves risk management opposed to direct farm payments. this is particularly important to the state of nebraska and all of our producers. we're number one in production of many commodities from red meat to great northern beans.

second in the nation in production of ethanol, something more than two billion gallons of this homegrown fuel into our energy supply every year. our productive farmers and ranchers in nebraska make us fifth in the nation in agriculture receipts while nearly one-third of all nebraska jobs are related to agriculture, it's our number-one industry. giving that importance to my state, i really appreciate the work that's been done and the strong bipartisan support of 16-5 out of the committee to the floor, to put the bill out of the committee to the floor. and truly it is about reform. it creates a market-oriented safety net. it eliminates direct farm subsidy payments. it streamlines and simplifies and consolidates programs and at the same time creating jobs for our, helping our economy grow. i'd like to emphasize one point

again. this major reform moves us away from government controls on production and moves us toward the private market to help sustain american agriculture. going in the right direction. it does all that while also making, as has been noted, a substantial contribution, more than $23 billion, to deficit reduction. that sets the example of how washington can begin to get our fiscal house in order. our bipartisan work in the ag bill is important. it demonstrates that we can work together, and particularly when it comes to deficit reduction and finding new ways to do things in a different way. turning to the reforms, by ending duplication and consolidating programs, the bill eliminates more than 100 programs or authorizations. it contains strong payment limitation language. funding programs for those who don't need them is nothing short of agricultural welfare.

producers in my state understand we can't keep funding programs for those who don't need them, nor should we. they understand we should keep funding programs for those who are in need. we need to prioritize better. the bill ends those outdated subsidies and ensuring farmers won't be paid for crops they aren't growing on land they aren't planting and ends direct farm payments saving taxpayers $16 billion on that program alone. that is a lot of money even in washington terms. as we end those subsidies, the farm bill establishes that crop insurance will be the focal point of risk management, as it should. by strengthening crop insurance and expanding access so farmers are not wiped out by a few days of bad weather. this allows farmers and ranchers on their own to select the best risk management for their production needs rather than having to rely on the sometimes goodwill of the government to bail them out in periods of

volatility. and at the same time one of the greatest challenges farmers face is the risk that prices will decline -- won't decline or collapse over the next several years. when things are good people never expect them to go bad. when they're bad they never assure they will go good. this leaves farmers exposed to high costs and low prices, and that can put them out of business. so in the ag committee we worked to address this risk by creating the ag risk program, it seeks to strike a better balance with this market-or oriented approach. we want farmers to stay if farming but we don't want them to farm federal programs. to conclude this is a solid-reform minded start. it maintains a strong safety net

to ensure a stable supply of food, feed, fuel and fiber. it is my hope that we will act on this bill soon and that the house will follow. with that, i yield the floor. thank you. ms. stabenow: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. ms. stabenow: and that it be charged equally to both sides. the presiding officer: only republicans have time remaining, ma'am. without objection, the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: and i yield the remaining time to the distinguished chairwoman and thank her so much for this team effort that has brought this excellent farm bill to the floor

of the senate. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: as we bring this time to a close, i just once again want to thank my ranking member and friend, senator roberts. i want to thank all the members of the committee. we had some tough negotiations. we had a strong bipartisan vote, as with any farm bill. there's still improvements we can make, and we're committed to doing that as we move forward. but overall, what we see before us is a true reform bill. cutting over $23 billion in the deficit. the first authorizing committee to do that. cutting or consolidating over 100, or about 100 different authorizations or programs that, frankly is unheard of. and we've done that while strengthening the farm safety net, moving to a risk-based

system, strengthening conservation. i'm very proud that we have 643 different conservation groups supporting this. and all together we are moving forward on a food and jobs reform bill. i hope colleagues will join us in a very strong vote to proceed on this bill. thank you. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the clerk will report motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: in accordance with the provision of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close debate on calendar number 415, s. s. 4230, a bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2017 and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on motion to proceed to s. 3227 to

reauthorize agricultural programs through 2017 and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 90. the nays are 8. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. under the previous order, there will be an hour of debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their

designees, with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: political leaders from the democratic side of the aisle -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. grassley: mr. president, political leaders from the democratic side of the aisle are now preemptively charging the supreme court with judicial activism if that court would strike down president obama's health care law as unconstitutional. i cannot remember when such a significant threat to judicial independence was made by attempting to effect the outcome of a pending case. it's an outrageous attack on the separation of power. the democrat claim is that unless the court rules in accordance with the policy preferences of a particular

speaker, the court's decision would be illegitimate. this is dangerous and this is wrong. president obama wrongly argued that it would be unprecedented for the supreme court to strike down a law that a large congressional majority passed. he was wrong on the size of the majority, and he was wrong about the supreme court's history in striking down laws that they consider unconstitutional. the president of the united states knows better because he's former constitutional law lecturer. he should know that the supreme court has done just that on many occasions over more than two centuries. and it's just not the case, as democrats claim, that the supreme court can strike down obamacare only by failing to follow established commerce clause jurisprudence.

when the judiciary committee held a hearing last year on the constitutionality of the law, i asked whether the supreme court would need to overturn any of its precedents to strike down the individual mandate part of health care reform. none of the witnesses -- and most of those witnesses were selected by the majority democrats -- could identify a single precedent that would have to be struck down. no matter how many times liberals repeat the statement, it is just not so. the supreme court would not be an activist court if it struck down health care reform. what is unprecedented is health care reform's infringement on personal liberty. the constitution establishes a very limited federal government.

when the supreme court asked him the obvious question of what limit the federal power would exist if the individual mandate were upheld, the solicitor general, arguing for the government and in support of the constitutionality, could not and did not provide an answer. so the obama administration believes the federal government can force americans to purchase broccoli or gym memberships and don't believe anyone who says otherwise once we start down that road of unprecedented power of the federal government under the commerce clause. critics contend that the whole body of law allowing federal regulation of the economy would be threatened if the supreme court struck down the health care reform bill. they even say that such a ruling would harm the legitimacy of the supreme court. that is just plain nonsense.

the supreme court has never addressed a law like this. striking down obamacare would have no effect on any other existing law. the real change in the law and to the country as a whole would be if the health care reform bill were upheld as constitutional. people understand this instinctively. a recent gallup poll found that 72% of americans, including even 56% of people who call themselves democrats, believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. so they clearly would accept the legitimacy of a ruling striking down the individual mandate. there is a constitutional law professor i'm familiar with who leans on the conservative side. he rarely discusses his work with his young children, but the

health care case has generated such attention that his 8-year-old son asked him about it. the father explained that the case involved whether the government can make people buy health insurance. this is what his 8-year-old son said: quote -- "they can't do that. this is a free country." end of quote. so even 8-year-olds understand the overreach of health care reform. unlike the supporters of obamacare who really never bothered to think through the lost constitutionality before passing it, most americans understand that this law threatens our freedom unlike any previous law. and i expect that the supreme court will agree. they understand that the law is not compatible with the constitution and must be struck down. it's ridiculous to claim that striking down this law would be judicial activism.

a ruling that obamacare is unconstitutional would recognize that the law departed from the text of the constitution, our very structure of our federalism, and even against the history of our country. as for judge mcconnell -- as former judge mcconnell has written, judicial activism cannot be defined one way when the meaning of actual constitutional text is at issue and another way when the words of the constitution are silent on questions such as same-sex marriage and abortion. this is what judge mcconnell wrote -- quote -- "there cannot be one set of rules for liberal justices and another set for conservatives. by threatening the court in advance, the critics are showing that they now have real doubts that the health care reform bill

is constitutional. whether addressed to an individual justice or to the court as a whole, claims that only one possible result can be reached or the court's ruling would be illegitimate are shockingly improper attempts to influence a pending case. but all the justices seem to have agreed, to combat what they see as any threat to their judicial independence. i suspect that inappropriate attempts to influence the court's decisions on pending cases will backfire. they will make the justices more determined than ever to show that they are adhering to their oath to defend the constitution without regard to popular opinion. they will never want their rulings to appear to have been the result of political br

browbeating. so let the justices undertake their responsibilities in deciding the constitutionality of health care reform. let them do it without threatening to pillory them in advance if we do not like the outcome. there is always time for reasoned criticism after any ruling, and particularly this ruling. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized. mr. lee: mr. president, i stand today to respond to what i believe are irresponsible and dangerous attacks on the legitimacy of the supreme court of the united states. over a three-day period beginning on march 26 of this year, the supreme court held more than six hours of oral argument to address the constitutionality of the affordable care act.

i was privileged to attend each of these sessions, and i can say that as a lifelong student of the constitution and as one who served as a law clerk at the supreme court of the united states, i was very interested to not only watch the arguments but also to read many of the briefs and follow each of the proceedings very closely. like so many others who watched or read these proceedings, i was most impressed by the quality of the questions, the quality of the advocacy and the overall discussion that took place in the supreme court. for their questions, the justices showed keen interest in the nature of the arguments made in support of obamacare. for example, justice kennedy asked whether under the administration's theory of the commerce clause there could be any meaningful limitation on the federal government's power under the commerce clause. he asked specifically, "can you

create commerce in order to regulate it?" such questions and hypotheticals are common and they are a useful way by which lawyers and judges tend to test the basic principle of limits enshrined in our constitution. if the federal government may compel commerce so that it may regulate the resulting commercial activity, there would arguably be little if not limit to the scope of federal power. there would be no aspect of our individual lives that the federal government could not dictate and control. such an all-powerful authority is, of course, flatly inconsistent with the constitution's doctrine of innumerated powers. this principle that is perhaps more well-settled than any other principle within our almost 22 225-year-old founding era document. based on the justices' questions at oral argument, many commentators, myself included, have prededucted that the

supreme court -- have redicted that the supreme court may well choose to invalidate the mandate of the affordable care act. apparently anticipating this possible outcome, some of my colleagues, as well as president obama, have made statements that it would somehow be improper for the supreme court to invalidate the affordable care act. they have asserted that striking down an act of congress like this one would somehow amount to judicial activism and that that would be otherwise be wildly inappropriate. they've criticized some of the questions asked by individual justices and have even gone so far as to suggest that those justices who might vote to invalidate the affordable care act would do so for reasons representing bias or partisan political motivations. this reminds me of the old saying that you can often tell -- you can often tell in a particular game which team is

losing by which side happens to be yelling at the referee. in response to these false and frankly reckless statements, i would like to make three points. first, attempts to manipulate or to bully the supreme court, especially during deliberations in a particular proceeding, are irresponsible and they tend to threaten the very fabric of our constitutional republic. each justice has sworn an oath to support, defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution and to discharge his or her duties faithfully and impartially. from time to time politicians and others may disagree with the court as to important constitutional issues, or even on the merits of a particular case. i certainly feel that way myself from time to time. but it is simply inappropriate for elected representatives, who themselves have sworn an oath to

the constitution, in the spirit of partisanship to question the honesty and impartiality of our nation's highest court in what could be perceived as part of an effort on part of those elected politicians to influence a case pending before the supreme court. second, criticisms of the well-established principle of judicial review grossly misrepresent how our constitutional republic functions. president obama and some members of this body have suggested that the judiciary, which they sometimes denigrate as a group of unelected people, should simply defer to congress. but of course each branch of government, including the judiciary, has an essential duty under the constitution to police its own actions, to make sure that its own actions comply with the text, the spirit, and the letter of the constitution. congress and the executive branch should police themselves to make sure that they don't

transgress those limits. but when the political branches happen to overstep their own boundaries, their own legitimate limits, as i believe happened with the individual mandate, the supreme court can and indeed must enforce the constitution. in the recent appearance before the judiciary committee, justice breyer explained, we are the boundary patrol. the constitution sets boundaries, of course. that's what's at issue here. this foundational principle applies to popular laws just as much as it applies to unpopular laws. now, the vast majority of americans -- about 74% according to one recent poll -- oppose the obamacare individual mandate. now, the supreme court will not strike it down merely because it's unpopular. but the court must do so if the mandate exceeds the authority

granted to congress under the constitution. that's what's at issue here. third and finally, it simply is not the case that a court can properly be described as activist just because it enforces the constitution's structural limits on federal power. in this context, it's not altogether helpful to focus the discussion of whether the court acts improperly on the contours of the word "activist" or "activism." we have to remember that for the supreme court, not acting to invalidate an unconstitutional law is every bit as bad, is every bit as repugnant to the rule of law and to the constitution as it is for the court to act to invalidate a law that is entirely justified on a constitutional basis. both represent -- both are the product of a betrayal of the

supreme court's duty to decide cases according to the laws and to the constitution of the united states of america. when the supreme court acts to enforce the constitution's limits on federal power, as i expect it may do in the affordable care act case, it does so pursuant to specific textual provisions of the constitution. on forcing the law in this undeniably -- enforcing the law in this undeniably manner spree serve he -- preserves the liberties of the among those liberties are those protected by perhaps the most important fundamental component to the constitution: this notion that we are all protected when the power of congress and the power of the federal government as a whole is restricted. this is why james madison appropriately observed that it was with good reason that the founding fathers reserved to the

states powers that he described as numerous and indefinite. while describing those powers that were vested in this body as few and defined. we're all safer, we're all more free, we're all more prosperous to the extent that we stand by this most important, fundamental precept of the constitution. that's what's at issue in this case. i hope and i trust that moving forward, president obama and my colleagues in this body will refrain from attempting to bully the supreme court or seeking to misrepresent the court's important work in fulfilling its constitutional duties. let's stop yelling at the referees and let the supreme court do its job while we do ours. thank you. mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. i wanted to speak to this same -- to this same question. as everyone knows, a ruling on the constitutionality of

obama-care is expected later this month and i think it's important that it be done in the right context here. now, a lot of our democratic colleagues have made clear their view that if the ruling doesn't go the way they want it to, it's not because they've passed an unconstitutional law but, rather, in their view, because it's some kind of a partisan activity by judicial activists and a lot of attention has been specifically focused on chief justice roberts. well, this -- this should not stand. the president himself actually started this i think when he said -- and i'll quote what he said -- "i'm confident that the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress." well, never mind that it wasn't passed by a strong majority and -- and, by the way, the chairman of the judiciary committee said something similar very recently, basically issuing a warning to chief justice roberts on the floor of the senate, stating that a 5-4

decision to overturn the law would be controversial. he said -- and i quote -- "i trust that he will be a chief justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial bench." in other words, the intimation here is that if the decision doesn't go their way, the court's reputation, and specifically the reputation of chief justice roberts, are on the line. well, the "wall street journal" wrote about this and -- and others have, talking about the threats by the president and -- and certain other members of his party with warnings -- and i'm quoting again as they wrote it -- "mr. roberts has a choice. either uphold obama-care or be portrayed a radical who wants to repeal the new deal and a century of precedent." so let's clear up a few things. first of all, as i said, the law was not passed by a strong majority in congress. it was passed exclusively by democrats. not a single republican supported it. it was the first time in history

that a major domestic legislation was passed by one party. that's really not the key point in terms of the constitutionality of the law, however. the key point is that the court's job is, as chief justice roberts said at his confirmation hearing, to work as an umpire, calling the balls and strikes as the court sees them. nonlegal arguments, like the court's decisions, have to be popular or unanimous, those are just unserious and, frankly, political rhetoric. we all know that in 1803 in the marbury v. madison case, the u.s. supreme court established the review of congressional action under article 3 of the constitution. and since then, courts have overturned hundreds of laws. it would hardly be, therefore, unprecedented or extraordinary for the court to overturn a congressional enactment, as the president has said. as the supreme court noted in that case, courts determining whether acts of a legislative branch are consistent with the constitution is the very essence of judicial duty.

and the court further noted that the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of a legislature and if the two conflict, the constitution and not such ordinary act must govern the case to which they both apply, end of quote. the actual substance of the ca case, which democrats seem eager to avoid talking about, is that oobama-care, if upheld, empowers the federal government to order its citizens to purchase particular goods and services that the government believes its citizens must have. that sort of all-powerful federal government is at odds with the concept of enumerated powers, as is creating commerce in order to regulate it, as justice kennedy intimated at the oral argument. and this is why a significant majority of americans dislike the law. they know the constitution is meant to place limits on the power of our government in order to protect the freedom of the people. mr. president, i can't guess how the court is going to rule. it may not agree with my views. but i suggest that political leaders and the executive and legislative branches need to cool their rhetoric, as my

colleague said, stop yelling at the umpire, stop the thinly veiled threats and react to the ruling after its rendered rather than before. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: mr. president, would the chair advise me when five minutes have arrived. thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i just want to add a few words to what's already been said by some of our most distinguished lawyers in the senate and that is, it is not controversial that since 1803, the doctrine of judicial review, as decided by the united states supreme court, has held in essence that it is the responsibility of the judiciary, the supreme court, to say what the law is. now, congress has its role and the court has its role and they are different.

and you can tell one reason they're different is because congress is elected every six years iyears in the senate, eveo years in the house. we are accountable to the people for our decisions, for the policies we vote for and again against, and that's why we're called the political branches of government, as is the executive branch. the president stands for election and, in essence, every presidential election, every congressional election, it's a referendum on the people and the policies that they embrace. the role of the supreme court in the federal courts is very different. as we all know, it's really kind of remarkable to me we're even having this conversation. but it's necessitated by the fact that the president and the distinguished chairman of the senate judiciary committee have said at different times in different places, have questioned the legitimacy of the supreme court performing this function which chief justice john marshall wrote about in 1803 in marbury v. madison. and that is, the role, the

emphatic duty of the court to say what the law is. so if it's congress's responsibility to write the policies and to write legislation, how is it different from the judiciary? well, sometimes the judiciary interprets that legislation, trying to figure out what congress intended, but in the area of constitutional review, more fundamentally, they want to make sure that congress has stayed within the limits imposed upon it by the american people when they ratified the united states constitution. and, of course, that is the big decision in the -- the health care case. it's almost unprecedented. you probably have to go back to the 19th century to find where the supreme court gave so much time for advocates to argue a supreme court case. ordinarily it's very strict time limits, but here, the court set three days worth of arguments down because of the importance

of the case and importance of the issues that the court will be called upon to decide. and my colleagues have already talked about the fact that the individual mandate is the -- has been the focus of so much attention. it's not the only issue. there is another very important issue in terms of whether the congress and the federal government can commandeer state resources through a huge expansion in medicaid which is then forced down on the states that they then have to accommodate within their state balanced budget requirements. but the individual mandate certainly we saw how the solicitor general of the united states stumbled, not because his inarticulate or incapable -- he is very articulate, he's a very capable lawyer -- but he simply didn't have a good argument to make when he was asked, what is the principal limitation on the federal government's authority under the commerce clause if the federal government can do this? stated another way, what is it that the congress can't do, the

federal government can't do if the federal government can force you to buy a government-approved product and then to fine you if you don't do that, which is the individual mandate argument? but -- so i don't think it's a controversial topic and i'm kind of surprised that we even find ourselves here responding to the president's remarks and the chairman of the judiciary committee's remarks questioning the very authority that's existed since at least 1803 in marbury v. madison, the doctrine of judicial review and the role of the judiciary to say what the fundamental law of the land allows and does not allow in terms of federal power. but there's another argument being made and that is that the supreme court comes down -- if the supreme court comes down and disagrees with congress on the health care law that somehow its legitimacy will be jeopardized. now, i don't think public opinion polls have or should have anything to do with the way that the supreme court decides an issue because their focus

should be on the constitution and not on the policy arguments. in other words, they shouldn't interfere with our role to make policy because, of course, then we are held accountable to the voters while they are given life tenure and they're given the protection of no reduction in their salary during their service on the bench exactly for the reason that they need to be protected from public opinion because their role is to focus on the constitution. but i just close by saying that according to a recent poll, 74% of americans want the court to strike down the individual mandate, so were the court to do that, it would hardly undermine the legitimacy of the court if the court happened to, just by coincidence, render a decision that the majority of americans would agree with. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, are we in morning business?

the presiding officer: we're on the mess to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the agriculture -- to the bill. mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: mr. president, i listened carefully to the speech just given about health care reform and i'd like to put in perspective what the challenge is that faces america. absent health care reform, absent a change in the growing increase in the cost of medical care, not only families but businesses and governments will find it impossible to adequately fund the health care that americans need. if we don't come together, as we tried with our health care reform bill, and dedicate ourselves to reducing the increase in the growth of the cost of medical care and do it with an assurance of quality being protected, then net result

of all of this i'm afraid is going to end up with america with medical bills it can't pay. we find, as we look at government programs -- medicare, medicaid, veterans' programs, for example -- that if we don't change the projected rate of growth of costs in these programs, in just a short period of time, the federal budget of america will be consumed by health care costs and interest on the national debt, to the exclusion of everything else. i just heard my friend, the senator from texas, speak against individual mandates. well, the word "mandate" i'm sure rubs many people the wrong way, but let's take a look at what that individual mandate is. from my point of view, it's a question of individual responsibility, whether or not individuals in this country have a responsibility to have health insurance. some argue, of course not, they don't. and yet the reality is that if

we don't have some sort of individual responsibility, the people without health insurance will get sick, present themselves at the hospital, be taken care of and their expenses will be shifted to all the rest of us, to everyone else. so to argue that people have no responsibility to have health insurance is an argument against individual responsibility and an argument that others should have to pay for the medical bills of those who have no insurance. that, to me, is unfair as well. we had within the health care reform act protection against expensive premiums. we limited the amount that an individual would have to pay for health insurance to 8% of their income. we provided special help for those in lower income categories. and i think that in and of itself is an effort to strike the right balance. i've been given a note by the staff here that the republican side has time lift here and i see my colleague, the senator from alabama, has come to the floor and i'll just yield to him at this point and resume after

he's finished. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: senator durbin, i know he's assistant leader here of the majority and has got a lot of things to do. if he'd like to finish up now, i'd be pleased to yield. mr. president, the american people are worried about the direction of our country and for good reason. they've witnessed a growing power and disregard for the constitution and the limits that are placed on the central government. it is set forth in the constitution, our government is a government of limited powers. this essence, i hear my friend and colleague and able advocate senator durbin say the question is about medical care, the question is about, he thinks, it is unfair that some people don't

buy insurance and therefore we ought to make them buy insurance. he thinks that's unfair. we had a year-long virtually argument and debate in this congress, and senator durbin prevailed by a single vote before senator brown could be confirmed to kill the health care bill. they were able to pass it through with the interim senator by a single vote in the house and the senate and it passed. but that's not what we're talking about today. that's not what senator cornyn and others have been talking about today. the point today is should the supreme court of the united states decide this question as a matter of law and principle or should they divine what they think the people want, although the american people show they consistently opposed this legislation, they never supported it, ever. but it was rammed through anyway

so they want to say well, this is important, we think it's unfair, even though the polling data show and the supreme court should have ratified, and they shouldn't worry about a little thing like the constitution, a limited power. so that's what i want to be talking about today. i want to affirm the duty of the supreme court of the united states, and that duty is to fairly and objectively interpret the constitution and to render justice not based on polling data and not based on congressional desires. so the american people polling data shows do think it's an impermissible, unconstitutional regulation, so it's difficult for me to say this was such a matter that the supreme court has got to acknowledge a minority view and approve it

even if the constitution doesn't agree. i don't think that's an argument that can be sustained in my view. so there has been since the oral arguments in the case, i sense -- and a lot of my colleagues share this view -- that the president himself, democrat colleagues in the house and the senate, their friends in the media and liberal government pro-health care advocates have stepped up undignified, not justified attacks on the court, which it seems to me to be an effort pretty transparent to try to influence the outcome of that independent branch of

government. and it also seems to me an attempt since i have been a student of this for some time now to lay the groundwork to declare that the supreme court is somehow illegitimate if they don't render a verdict like my colleagues think should be rendered. i would just say parenthetically that whereas two years ago when this bill passed 60-40, took 60 votes to pass it, it doesn't pass today. it wouldn't be close to having 60 votes today because the american people spoke in 2007 and sent home a lot of people who voted for this bill when they didn't want them voting for it. that was a big deal in the election, frankly, if you want to talk about that. so this philosophy that we hear advocated is a dangerous

philosophy of law and jurisprudence, it's results oriented. it's political, not law, and it surely is contrary to the great heritage of law that this country has been so blessed with. so it may be that my colleagues are concerned because when pressed by the justices of the united states in oral argument, the solicitor general of the united states seemed to be utterly incapable of identifying any limiting principle on government power. the solicitor general proffered various reasons why health care is unique, but not one of them was effectively grounded on any constitutional text, principle or theory, at least in my way of thinking. people can disagree, the judges

will have the final word on it. the nonlegal argument that the court should not overturn a popular law suggested by many is of course irrelevant, not only because this health care law is in fact unpopular but because popularity does not translate in the constitutionality. of course. under the popularity theory, it would be wrong for the court to strike down the defense of marriage act which the administration had decided is unconstitutional and refuses to defend in court even though the law was so popular it passed congress 342-67 in the house and 85-14 in the senate. so making the popularity argument reveals the lack of legal argument. it condemns such advocates as advocates against law, not for

law. so the laws -- the health care law supporters have disdainfully and consistently dismissed the motion, and it was done during the debate that the legislation raised serious constitutional questions. i remember the debate in the senate. this disdain was no more starkly demonstrated than when a reporter asked the then-speaker of the house of representatives nancy pelosi what the constitutional basis was for the statute, and she condescendingly replied are you serious? is my time up? the presiding officer: the setor's time is expired. mr. sessions: i would -- if the majority leader, i would certainly -- my time is up, i would yield.

i just would ask how long he might expect to be and if it would be possible to have consent to speak an additional five minutes after the senator completes. mr. reid: i ask that after my announcement the senator from alabama be recognized for another five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from alabama is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions: i know the majority leader is extremely busy, and i appreciate his courtesy and respect, a difficult duty he has here. so she said are you serious? well, when the solicitor general of the united states was being grilled by the justices of the united states, i have got to tell you, it looked serious then . it's axiomatic that the commerce clause, which is the one clause that would give power to the government to take over health care, was never understood to give unlimited power to the

federal government. the federal government without doubt is a government of limited powers. it certainly never meant the congress could regular nature noncommerce under the power to regulate commerce. you can't regulate noncommerce when the only power the federal government has given is the power to regulate commerce. give me a break. as judge roger vincent, a distinguished judge, stated in his opinion in the case in which he struck this bill down, he said -- quote -- "it would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that congress can regulate inactivity under the commerce clause. it has the power to compel and otherwise -- an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party by asserting, as it has done in this act, that compelling the actual

transaction itself is a commercial and economic event and substantially affects interstate commerce. it is not hyperbollizing to suggest that congress to do almost anything it wanted. if congress to penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of the powers in the constitution would have been in vain for it would have been difficult to conceive any limitation on federal power and we would have a constitution in name only. surely, this is not what the founding fathers could have intended." close quote. a serious question. the supreme court needs to do it and they don't need to have congress trying to pressure them one way or the other.

so, mr. president, the president of the united states, president obama, might think this is unprecedented or -- his words or extraordinary for the court to strike down a clearly unconstitutional statute, but it is not. the supreme court has the duty under the constitution, under the powers of the judiciary to speak clearly if congress passes a law that violates the constitution, that assumes powers congress does not have, that amendments to act in ways on behalf of the federal government that the constitution never gave the government the power to do. they have a duty to strike it down. so the court's reputation would be damaged if it bows to political bullying, but it won't

be damaged if it follows the constitution. and i think it's wrong to disparage and threaten the court during the pendcy of a case in order to influence the outcome. i don't have any problem with criticizing a court decision if i disagree with it, but to try to congressionally, politically pressure for it i think is wrong for us. so these are important questions of law. i have an opinion, but the court has a duty. that duty is to decide the case before them impartially as a neutral up pyre without counting the crowd noise. i believe they will do their duty, and we all await the outcome. i thank the chair, i thank the majority leader and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized.

mr. reid: i have six unanimous consent requests that have been cleared by me and the minority leader. i ask consent they be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, the last congress was the most productive in the history of the country. some say not the most productive. certainly, no one disagrees the most productive since franklin roosevelt was president during his first term. with this new majority of the house, this congress has been altogether different, and that is an understatement. consistently, this congress has taken weeks or months to pass even simple, commonsense legislation, proposals that would previously have passed in minutes. the senate has wasted literally months considering bipartisan bills only to have those bills smothered to death under piles of nonrelevant republican amendments.

and congressional republicans have held even the most important jobs measures hostage to extract votes on unrelated ideological amendments, despite the minority leader's own call to -- quote -- "stop all the showboats." end of quote. those were his words. mr. president, democrats and the american people have endured this blatant obstruction all year. in fact, for 18 months. what is this we're talking about obstruction. if you look in the dictionary, it says it all. i did that this morning. the dictionary says that obstruction is a condition of being clogged or blocked. now, doesn't that define what's happened here in this wonderful body we call the united states senate? republicans have clogged or blocked everything we have tried to do, even things, mr. president, they have agreed

on. and yesterday, we read that we'll have to endure every day for the rest of the year, every day for the rest of this congress -- and this came from congressman cantor, the number two person in the republican-dominated house of representatives. house republican leaders admit they have given up on actually running the country. despite the work that remains to keep our country on the right track and continue 27 months of private sector job growth, they say they're done legislating for the year. in spite of the fact that the president is working to create 4.3 million private-sector jobs. but listen to this report from the political publication "politico" yesterday. i quote -- "serious legislation is all but done until after the election. the rest of this year, canter said, will be likely about sending signals." end of quote. let's try that again because it

is rulely ard to comprehend that somebody who is supposedly runedding the other body would say such a thing, but he did. "serious legislation is all but done until after the election much. the rest of this year, cantor said, will likely be about sending signals." so, mr. president, rather than work with democrats to strengthen our economy and create jobs, congressional republicans will put on a show designed to demonstrate extreme, ideological direction in which they would lead this country. the majority leader cantor's statement is frightening. he said outloud what every republican on capitol hill has been thinking all along -- they care more about winning elections than creating jobs. you don't hear them say so in public where reporters are listening. just a short month ago, speaker boehner urged congress, and i quote, "to roll up your sleeves and get to work."

end of quote. to an audience of sceive tirvetion the speaker said, "we can't wait until after the election to legislate." less than a week after he said that leader mcconnell urged us to -- quote -- "stop the show votes that are designed to fail. let's stop the blame game. let's come together and do what the american people expect us to do." mr. president, the statements of speaker boehner and leader mcconnell are orwellian. they do exactly the opposite of what they say. republican senator olympia snowe, by all means a moderate senator, who is retiring over increasing partisanship in washington, wrote to me in april to urge quick senate action on many of the challenging issues facing us. it was a letter crying out for

help but not help from us, not help from democrats; she was speaking to the republicans. she knew they were holding up virtually everything we were trying to do. and i'm sure that's one reason that this fine woman is leaving the senate. leader cantor's remarks provide a window into the true republican agenda. it seems when congressional republicans forget the world is watching, they say what they really mean. they're more interested in putting on a partisan sideshow than in solving the real problems facing this nation. but, mr. president, in truth this comes as no surprise. it's just more -- more of the same. republicans have launch add series of attacks on access to health care for women, even contraception, and filibustered legislation to ensure american women pay equal -- receive equal pay for equal work. in my desk here, mr. president

-- i haven't used thi useed thia while, but i knew it was here. filibuster -- filibuster, filibuster, filibuster, filibuster. that's what object trucks is all about -- that's what obstruction is all about. filibuster, from the dictionary, "one of a class of paratical adventurers, one hone gauges in unauthorized and irregular warfare against foreign states, a pirate craft." it is also defined "to obstruct progress and legislative assembly to practice obstruction." and that's, mr. president, what they've done p.

they've filibustered legislation to ensure american women get equal pay for equal work. who could be against that? the american people -- you take a poll, no one is against it. republicans aren't against it -- except republicans in the congress of the united states. they've stopped us from restoring fairness to the tax code, to ensure billionaires don't pay a lower tax than middle-class families. they've put women at risk by holding the violence against women act in limbo. they've blocked a bill to hire more teachers, firefighters, first responders, cops. we had 22 short-term extensions. finally, they shut down the government on one occasion, the government as it relates to the federal aviation administration, putting tens of thousands of people out of work.

they've stalled for months and months, work done on a bipartisan basis, by two fine senators, senator boxerer, the chairman of the committee, senator inhofe, the ranking member. doesn't matter. they're stalling the highway bill. millions of jobs. we can't get it done. for months the congressional republicans have actively worked against any piece of legislation that might create jobs or spur economic growth. and you don't need to take my word for it. just look at their record. democrats have known all along that congressional republicans' number-one goal isn't to improve the economy or create jobs. it's to defeat president obama. and people say, oh, come on. you don't really mean that, do you? i mean every word of it. here's why. because the leader of the republicans in the senate said it. i didn't make it up. the minority leader, the senior

senator from kentucky, said so plainly in another one of those moments of candor. -he said, "thesingle most impore want to achieve is for president obama to be a one-term president." he said that in october 2010 when this country was mired in monumental challenges. rather than saying, let's work together to do some things. how many jobs could we have create fundamental we had had some semblance of help from the republicans in congress? not 4.3 million jobs. remember, 8 million or 10 million were lost in the bush administration. we've struggled to get some of them back. we could have created millions of more jobs because with a little help.

but here's where they're headed, mr. president. they're headed in doing everything they can, no matter what it takes, to try to make president obama a one-term president. mr. president, we're fighting back from the greatest recession since the great depression. yet republicans' top priority hasn't been to create jobs. their top priority wang to help business grow and have people hire workers, wasn't to train the next general rawings of skilled -- the next generation of skilled employers. mr. president, we have 70,000 -- not 7,000 -- 70,000 bridges that are in trouble in this country. they need help. we have a bus -- a bridge in reno, nevada, that they won't have the kids be in the school bus. they take them out, drive the bus over and have the kids walk

across the bridge. that's not the only place. all over the country that's happening. but we're getting no help. no, that wasn't their top priority, to help create these construction jobs. it was to drag down the economy in hopes of defeating president obama. and thanks to, mr. president, leader cantor's candor, today we know the republicans' priorities hajj changehang changed one sin- hasn't changed one single bit. mr. durbin: mr. president, the majority leader comes to the floor to call attention to the nation a statement made yesterday by the majority leader of the house republicans, eric cantor of virginia. many people remember, mr. majority leader, that it was eric cantor who was appointed to the deficit task force that the president created, chaired by

vice president joe biden, a bipartisan effort to try to deal with the deficit. and people will remember that there came a moment, after several weeks, when mr. cantor stood up and say said, i'm leav. literally walked out of this highest-level negotiation on deficit reduction, said "i want no part of it." well, we've got another walkaway here. eric cantor, the majority leader in the house, has announced that we're finished for business this year. there is nothing more we're going to do. to him, i guess that's an important responsibility. but to the rest of america, it is an abdication of responsibility, an abdication of responsibility. this morning, the chairman of the federal reserve, ben bernanke, appeared before the joint economic committee, and they wanted to talk to him about are what more could be done by the federal reserve in monetary policy dealing with interest rates to get the economy moving forward. it is a legitimate policy question.

but if mr. bernanke could have turned the tablings for a moment, he might have asked the members of congress, well, what are you doing to get the economy moving forward? i think that's a reasonable question. let me suggest to mr. cantor, who thinks we're finished for business this year, that there are many elements of outstanding tbhais can help create -- of outstanding business that can help create jobs in america. let's start with the first one -- the transportation bill. the transportation bill will create 2.8 million jobs in america. what kind of jobs? as the majority leader said, to repair bridges and highways, to build our airports, to make sure america has a safe infrastructure to build our economy on. well, in the senate, we came to an agreement. senator barbara boxer, chairman of the environment and public works committee, as well as senator jim inhofe, the ranking republican member from oklahoma, reached an agreement, brought a bill to the floor, we went through the long process of amendments, and it passed.

i think the final roll call was 74-22. it was an overwhelming bipartisan vote that extended for two years highway construction in america and creates 2.8 million jobs. well, obviously, that's something that's good for america. the question that should be asked is, well, where was the house transportation bill? the honest answer is, they never produced one -- never. they couldn't agree hon a bill. the house republicans failed to pass a transportation bill. ultimately, they passed a measure to extend the current highway trust fund and taxes that are collected to july 1, just a few weeks from now. and then the majority leader appointed a conference committee -- i'm honored to be on that committee with a number of my colleagues. i can't tell you how hard senator boxer and senator inhofe have worked on that committee. this bipartisan effort, a democrat and republican, has

resulted in a compromise bill which they personally hand delivered to the speaker of the house, john boehner of ohio, this week. they understand we have a july 1 deadline. they understand the urgency to take it up and move it to create and keep 2.8 million jobs in america. what was the response of speaker boehner? well, it was warm and welcoming. but the fact is, as of today, maybe tomorrow, the house is gone ta for a week. so in this critical period of time when we're up against a july 1 deadline, when millions of american john roberts are on the line -- when millions of american jobs are on the line, the house is leaving. and eric cantor said, it doesn't make any difference if we stay because we're not going to do anything significant. we're just going to politic and posture. how do you explain this to the families across america, workers who need a job at a time when the economy is tough, people

living paycheck to paycheck, now have to i guess, accept this furlough that the majority leader has announced for the rest of the year. there's important work to be done here. it isn't just the transportation bill. the majority leader raised some questions and issued that still are pending between us. let me also add another one to the list -- cybersecurity. cybersecurity ... i saw a meeting, i guess it was about two months ago, that i've never seen in the united states senate. we had a negotiation to ask all of the senators to go to a classified setting, a secret setting, for a briefing on cybersecurity. there was a large turnout, democrats and republicans. and they spelled out to us the threat to the united states of america from china, russia, other countries, and individual actors who are trying to invade our information technology t